‘In The City of Oxford Bus Services Ltd (t/a Oxford Bus Company) v Harvey [2018] UKEAT 0171 18 2112, the Company employed Mr Harvey, a Seventh Day Adventist, as a bus driver. Drivers were required to work on five out of seven days each week, including on Fridays and Saturdays but Mr Harvey, as an Adventist, was obliged to respect the Sabbath by not working between sunset on a Friday and sunset on a Saturday.’

‘Criminal law barristers cannot go on without “sensible parameters” for sitting hours and overnight working and will take action if the judiciary does not, the head of their representative body said yesterday.’

‘The previous blog post drew attention to the way in which the scope of rights protected in the UK may be diminished post Brexit if the Charter is not retained as part of domestic law. The second reason for retaining the Charter draws attention to the remedy provided when rights are breached. Individuals relying on the Charter at the moment can use the Charter to disapply legislation which breaches Charter rights. This is a legally binding remedy which invalidates the relevant legislation. This is not the case for those relying on common law rights, or their Convention rights under the Human Rights Act.’

‘Last week, Lord Sumption delivered the majority decision of the Supreme Court on Benkharbouche v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs: Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Libya v Janah. The case would have been heard in December of last year, but for the small matter of Miller, which caused the hearing to be moved to June of this year. Brexit and Miller, however, do not only seem to have affected the timing of the hearing. They have also affected its importance. What might have been originally anticipated as a potentially defining moment – where the Supreme Court confirmed that the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms could be used as a stand-alone cause of action to disapply primary legislation and explained how this could be achieved – was translated into an almost blasé statement by the court that ‘a conflict between EU law and English domestic law must be resolved in favour of the former, with the latter being disapplied; whereas the remedy in the case of inconsistency with Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention is a declaration of incompatibility.’ What might once have seemed controversial has become run of the mill. What has led to the casual acceptance of ‘disapplication’ of a UK statute; and what will happen to disapplication – and the Charter – post-Brexit?’

‘In my capacity as the Judge in Charge of Reform, and in light of public comments – particularly from members of the legal profession – I thought it would be helpful to attempt to demystify the proposed Flexible Operating Hours Pilots. I regret the extent of the widely-broadcast misunderstandings and ill-informed comments from a range of sources.’

‘The resident judge at Blackfriars Crown Court, one of the six courts due to take part in a Ministry of Justice (MoJ) pilot on extended court hours, has attempted to calm lawyers’ anger over the move.’

‘The Bar Standards Board (BSB) is considering the impact of the HM Courts and Tribunal Service’s (HMCTS) proposals for longer sitting hours on the diversity of the profession, the only legal regulator so far to take a step, however tentative, into an issue that has generated bitter opposition from the profession.’

‘FOCUS The EU’s highest court has ruled that the time those with no fixed place of work spend travelling between home and their first and last places of work each day counts as “woking time” – but this does not necessarily entitle them to extra pay.’

‘The European Court of Justice (“the ECJ”) has now given judgment in Federacion de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones obreras v Tyco Integrated Security Case C-266/14 consistent with the Advocate General’s opinion, on which James Goudie QC blogged recently. For peripatetic or mobile workers (who do not have a fixed or habitual workplace) time spent travelling from home to the first appointment and from the last appointment back home counts as working time under EU law. The judgment has very significant implications for employers whose workforce includes, for example, home care staff, gas fitters, and sales teams.’

‘The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s (EAT’s) judgment in the Bear Scotland case is the latest in a series of cases considering what must be included in the calculation of holiday pay under the UK’s Working Time Regulations (WTR). The ruling sent shockwaves through the business community, with some commentators estimating that around five million workers in the UK could be entitled to more holiday pay at a potential cost to companies of billions of pounds. Business Secretary Vince Cable even set up a taskforce to assess the possible impact of the EAT’s decision. Adam Solomon and Sophia Berry throw the spotlight on the Bear Scotland litigation in the context of other decisions on holiday pay and consider its implications. This article first appeared in the March 2015 edition of Tolley’s Employment Law Newsletter.’
Full story

‘Police officers acting as handlers to informers, and responding to an automated out of hours telephone system, where contact was required between a handler and an informer, were entitled to overtime pay.’

‘In Sash Window Workshop v King theEmployment Appeal Tribunal returned to two of the central controversies in recent holiday pay case-law. Firstly the right to carry annual leave entitlement over from one leave year to the next. Secondly the right to claim back pay for untaken leave in historic leave years, particularly upon the termination of employment.’

‘Last week, amid much media excitement, the Employment Appeal Tribunal handed down its judgment in the conjoined cases of Bear Scotland v Fulton, Amec v Law & Hertel v Woods. All three cases were appealing against the decisions of employment tribunals who determined that the calculating “normal remuneration” for holiday pay purposes should include overtime even if the overtime is not guaranteed.’

‘Employers are urging the government to rush through emergency legislation to save thousands of companies from having to pay out hundreds of millions of pounds in backdated holiday pay to up to 5 million people.’